quote="stockingfull"]Well, the corps and the unions (and there are far more of the former) just got full 1st Amendment rights -- curiously nowhere stated in the Constitution for corporations -- from the "activist" conservative bloc on the Supreme Court, so you won't have to worry about all this left-wing influence being hidden by the MSM anymore.

Meanwhile, Obama, or any President, is absolutely entitled to speak with and listen to anybody he chooses. At least it's not a secret anymore who those people are.

And "Big Money" will be absolutely free to create any propaganda they want about issues, people or candidates, and spew it as far as their dollars (oops, I mean their shareholders' dollars) will carry it.[/quote]

Are you even listening to yourself?

What I’m hearing is you think that the 1st Amendment can be granted to or removed from certain groups based on their standing or position in society. If that’s what you are saying that’s about as un-American as things get. So what if the Constitution doesn’t specifically grant Corporations 1st Amendments rights. It doesn’t eliminate them either nor should it. Sorry, tie goes to the runner and in this case that's the corporations who by the way are made up of average citizens who have the right to enjoy every right provided in the Bill of Rights regardless of whether or not it fits into the agenda of the left.

Yes, Obama or any President or for that matter any American - even those who have chosen to incorporate their businesses - are entitled to speak with and listen to anybody they chose anytime they chose. And that's just what the recent ruling from the Supreme Court insures. It means that no longer will the average citizen be muzzled during the last 60 days of an election; it means that some organizations will be able to counter the $67 million dollars donated by the SEIU to the Obama campaign during the election. That donation is pretty common knowledge at least in my circle of friends but it’s easily documented if you care to look it up. Isn’t the internet great? You can tell just how correct this ruling was by the reaction of the left. Again, I'm totally amazed how blind the left is to the ills of their party. I can at least look at and admit the faults of the right and there have been many. But voiding the Bill of Rights for specific groups isn’t one of them. Lisa

Disclaimer: Any spelling errors or punctuation mistakes are due entirely to my fat fingers on a small keyboard. Any homophones used in error are just that; an error - forgotten details from a public school education so give me a break.

Let us know how that works out for you, LIsa, when your friend down in Venezuela starts influencing elections with Citgo money, and when China ends up owning us even more than they already do, and Donald Trump buys off your local township committee so he can build a casino in your backyard.

You think those in office don't listen to the needs of their constituents now? Just wait until you simply won't be heard at all, by anyone from the dogcatcher on up, over the sound of money being thrown at those you previously thought represented the people.

You just don't get it , do you? Just because you don't like the Rights given in the Constitution doesn't mean you can put laws in place that restrict them for any group. I see you aren't challenging my statement that this is clearly un-American. Is this what you'd have me believe the left stands for? Come on, I want to have an honest conversation with you. No name calling; just convince me of your argument. If you don't agree that the Rights afforded in the Constitution are to be given to all American citizens regardless of their standing or position in the society then by God use the means outlined in the Constitution to change them! Work for an Amendment to the Constitution. In my humble opinion, you and your leftist friends don’t go this route because you know that once this came to light it wouldn't have an ice cube's chance in July of surviving the Amendment process. Which specifically defined group of Americans citizens would next to lose their 1st Amendment rights? Come on, stop bringing hypothetical situations to the discussion and let's discuss this issue in context of the here and now. Do the rights afforded in the Constitution belong to all Americans or just those groups the left says are ok? Lisa

Disclaimer: Any misspelled word or punctuation is the result of my fat fingers on a small keyboard. Give me a break; I’m not as young as I once was.

Is a business or union a American citizen? They are owned by shareholders or members that all have rights so as such they have a right to support & vote for whomever they please. But I personally don`t believe anything should have a right to attempt to influence votes, IMO that S.C. vote was exactly oppisite from what should be. They should get rid of lobbys & high influence buying off the house & senate & I think thats exactly whats going on, it was bad enough now other countries will be able to buy elections.

I must have a different copy of the Bill of Rights and Constitution than you as mine doesn't have the word "corporation" in it anywhere.

I have some questions about what your special Constitution containing the word corporation might also include.

How many votes should we give to the corporation? How about the right to peacefully assemble? Should the mighty corporation have that too? And should the fighting corporation be covered by the second amendment too? What about an American corporation headed by a foreign national? How many votes for their favorite candidate should they get?

tvb wrote:Let us know how that works out for you, LIsa, when your friend down in Venezuela starts influencing elections with Citgo money, and when China ends up owning us even more than they already do, and Donald Trump buys off your local township committee so he can build a casino in your backyard.

You think those in office don't listen to the needs of their constituents now? Just wait until you simply won't be heard at all, by anyone from the dogcatcher on up, over the sound of money being thrown at those you previously thought represented the people.

OUR friend in Venezuela? You're kidding right? Citgo contributed to Obama's campaign and Chavez is tight with Kennedy and the left. Also that top climate scientist, Danny Glover.

tvb wrote:Let us know how that works out for you, LIsa, when your friend down in Venezuela starts influencing elections with Citgo money, and when China ends up owning us even more than they already do, and Donald Trump buys off your local township committee so he can build a casino in your backyard.

You think those in office don't listen to the needs of their constituents now? Just wait until you simply won't be heard at all, by anyone from the dogcatcher on up, over the sound of money being thrown at those you previously thought represented the people.

OUR friend in Venezuela? You're kidding right? Citgo contributed to Obama's campaign and Chavez is tight with Kennedy and the left. Also that top climate scientist, Danny Glover.

glover.jpg

ONce again, you prove your ignorance by being wrong regarding CITGO donations to Obama. And who really cares about Danny Glover? You guys seem to be more concerned about him than anyone on the left.

Stocks,tvb this is an amazing class struggle. The fight against liberals will go on forever. I personally believe in what President Reagan once said: "We can disagree,but we don't have to be disagreable". However,it seems that often,the Madhatter posting sessions become personal attacks. This could be observed as nothing more than a couple of loud mouth civil and internet rights liberals come wading into a pool of Centrist/Conservative Folks and espouse their liberal philosophies to an audience of those ready to strangle them,or to be kinder,drown them in wine spritzers. You really can't pull crap just to yank chains and not expect retribution. That retribution could backfire into something like you post here and are basically ignored. That 'aint to fun,and the argumentometer goes straight to zero. I know you figure you've got these folks here pegged for being from the 40's,but I wouldn't be so sure. Let's face it,no one here is going to change...The fight will go on forever,this isn't Star Trek. Ray Bradbury has left the building. There's got to be a some type of solution for how mean and dirty this all gets. .......I'm going to take a step back into some neutral area for a little bit. This crap isn't contributing to this fine Digital Institution at all......There,now I've done it. I got right in the middle of it all and here it comes......Thank God I will remember to duck!......Luv and Hugs..Hambden"Rocky Balboa" Bob

tvb wrote:I must have a different copy of the Bill of Rights and Constitution than you as mine doesn't have the word "corporation" in it anywhere.

I have some questions about what your special Constitution containing the word corporation might also include.

How many votes should we give to the corporation? How about the right to peacefully assemble? Should the mighty corporation have that too? And should the fighting corporation be covered by the second amendment too? What about an American corporation headed by a foreign national? How many votes for their favorite candidate should they get?

You make me laugh - you libs are always pointing to things that don't exist in the Constitution. What's there is plain to see - they did it that way so everyone could understand it. Show me where it excludes any one section of the population due to a group or organization they belong to. No, you are screaming foul because the playing field has been leveled. A corporation at least has an obligation to and oversight by a body of stockholders. Stockholders have a choice of whether or not to own that stock. Unions don't have that, if you want the job you pay the dues and have no say in where the money goes. Tell me the difference between the two organizations. Why has one group been denied their 1st Amendments rights and one isn't?

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question as to whether or not the rights granted in the Constitution can be denied to any one group of Americans based on their membership in a specific organization or group. How do you justify that mind set? Lisa

Disclaimer: Any misspelled word is due to my fat fingers on a small keyboard. Please give me a break; I'm not as young as I once was.

[quote="tvb]ONce again, you prove your ignorance by being wrong regarding CITGO donations to Obama. And who really cares about Danny Glover? You guys seem to be more concerned about him than anyone on the left.[/quote]

Well actually Chavez did donate to Obamas campaign through a Citgo PAC. And quite a bit more thorugh Code Pink. Look it up little little missy.

Well as interesting as this conversation has been I can see that I'm not going to get an answer to my question "Can membership in a particular group or organization negate the rights afforded all American citizens under the Constitution? So I'm out of the conversation... if someone wants to answer this question and have a real conversation please PM me. I'll be happy to respond. Have a great night! Lisa

lowfog01 wrote:Well as interesting as this conversation has been I can see that I'm not going to get an answer to my question "Can membership in a particular group or organization negate the rights afforded all American citizens under the Constitution? So I'm out of the conversation... if someone wants to answer this question and have a real conversation please PM me. I'll be happy to respond. Have a great night! Lisa

Corporations are creatures -- legal fictions -- created under state law. They exist to promote business risk-taking by, among other things, limiting liability to the extent of their capitalization. In every country where they exist, and whatever they are called, corporations are meant precisely NOT to be complete persons. They exist for the limited purpose of advancing their business purpose. And they get all kinds of special treatment, tax- and otherwise, to advance those purposes.

Moreover, the word corporations, so far as I'm aware, nowhere appears in the Constitution. Have any of you found it?

So how then is it that these "activist judges" wrote it in there? Isn't that what this bloc of "textualists" swore they would never do?

One thing's for sure: between Bush v. Gore and the Citizens United decision Thursday, the term "activist judges" will belong to the conservative bloc for a generation, if not more.